A Boon for Private Firms: Law Threatens City Engineers

A Boon for Private Firms
Law Threatens City Engineers

In 1957, I received my New York State Professional Engineer's License, which was earned by the required experience and the passing of three four-hour exams. With the P.E. License came the obligation to practice only in the area of my expertise. This license was a requirement that enabled me to work for the New York City Transit Authority for more than 35 years. This same license requirement enables New York City to hire engineers who have met a higher standard than is required in private industry, thereby benefiting the public.

In 2003, private firms aided and abetted by professional societies (which they control) induced New York State to pass a continuing education law for engineers. This law will in time reduce the number of P.E.'s in New York State. The engineering professionals would now be required to take state-approved continuing education courses (with the exception of those who worked for state and local government prior to Jan. 1, 2004).

The cost (at least $600 per year) and time would be the burden of the P.E. In time, this law would shutter small engineering firms, as individuals would not be able to afford the time to take these courses. In time, municipal and state agencies would find fewer people willing to work for them as the legal requirement (up-to-date P.E. registration) would be harder to fulfill.

The result would be an eventual end to government engineers, leading to a fiscal bonanza for large private firms (where only one licensed member or a corporate licensed seal would satisfy the law). And so in effect there would be a tax on the public, since private industry charges much more for the same job that government engineers perform.

The professional societies claim that continuing education is needed to upgrade the technical expertise of the engineers. A noble idea, if this were the fact. In the three years since the CE law was passed, I have received dozens of ads from different companies, schools and the professional societies about state-approved courses they offer.

I have yet to see any course which would upgrade my knowledge in my area of expertise (tunnels). I did not see any courses in areas where I have sufficient knowledge to give people an engineering opinion. The only courses I saw were potential get-rich schemes for course-givers, with no real relevant knowledge imparted to the engineering course-taker.

In examining the law, I did not see how companies using their corporate seal would have to renew their seal, thereby allowing non-engineers to eventually control the company and make decisions.

In short, this is a bad law enacted to allow the destruction of civil-service engineering and small private engineering firms. There is money to be made, and this law will make sure the right people get it.

Mr. Levy, a retired veteran of 35 years in the transit system who monitored the structural integrity of the subway system's below-river tunnels, is the former chairman of the Civil Service Technical Guild's New York City Transit chapter.